"Sufficient Ground" U/S 203 CrPC Means Satisfaction That A Prima Facie Case Is Made Out : Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court clarified that "sufficient ground" under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, based on the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit. It does not imply sufficient ground for conviction.
The revision was against the order where the trial court dismissed the complaint filed by the revisionist under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The complaint case involved a dispute over obstructed drain (naali) and alleged assault and robbery by the accused.
A Bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I placing reliance on a Supreme Court judgment held, “In Nirmaljit Singh Hun Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2639, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the words “sufficient ground” mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused, by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit. They do not mean sufficient ground for conviction.”
The revisionist argued that the trial court wrongly dismissed the complaint without considering the evidence.
The Court reproduced Section 203 of Cr.P.C. which allows the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The Court added, “Under this section, the Magistrate may summarily dismiss a complaint, if, after considering the statement of oath of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C., he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In coming to a decision whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint, the Magistrate must take into consideration the previous proceedings, if any.”
The Court reviewed the evidence, including statements of the complainant and witnesses, injury reports, and the police report. It noted discrepancies between the complaint and the injury report. It considered the possibility of a false case due to a pre-existing dispute. The Court added, “It has been mentioned by the trial court in the impugned order that as per the statement of complainant and his witnesses, all 7 accused persons assaulted the complainant with lathi, danda, kicks and fists but in the injury report of the complainant, only 5 contusion injuries are shown. The injury incurred to the complainant is simple in nature. From the report received from the Police Station- Kotwali Orai, which is placed on the file, it was found that there is dispute and litigation regarding the pathway and drain between the parties which has been allegedly obstructed by the accused persons on the complaint of opposite parties. The trial court has concluded that it is possible that to pressurize the accused person regarding the aforesaid dispute, the complainant might have filed a false case.”
The Court concluded that the trial court did not commit any illegality in dismissing the complaint.
The Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Cause Title: Shivnarayan v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2023:AHC:232399]
Click here to read/download Order
